This sentence is not true.
It is not true about what?
It is not true about being not true.
It is not true about being not true about what?
It is not true about being not true about being not true.
Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
gets to the point.
This is formalized in the Prolog programming language
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
False.
Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the
resolution of an expression remains stuck in
infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
In Olcott's Minimal Type Theory
LP := ~True(LP)Â Â Â // LP {is defined as} ~True(LP)
that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...)))))) https://philarchive.org/archive/PETMTT-4v2
The above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
This sentence is not true.
It is not true about what?
It is not true about being not true.
It is not true about being not true about what?
It is not true about being not true about being not true.
Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
This sentence is not true.
It is not true about what?
It is not true about being not true.
It is not true about being not true about what?
It is not true about being not true about being not true.
Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
gets to the point.
This is formalized in the Prolog programming language
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
False.
Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the
resolution of an expression remains stuck in
infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
In Olcott's Minimal Type Theory
LP := ~True(LP)Â Â Â // LP {is defined as} ~True(LP)
that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))
https://philarchive.org/archive/PETMTT-4v2
The above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
*Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox* https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
This sentence is not true.
It is not true about what?
It is not true about being not true.
It is not true about being not true about what?
It is not true about being not true about being not true.
Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
gets to the point.
This is formalized in the Prolog programming language
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
False.
Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the
resolution of an expression remains stuck in
infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
In Olcott's Minimal Type Theory
LP := ~True(LP)Â Â Â // LP {is defined as} ~True(LP)
that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))
https://philarchive.org/archive/PETMTT-4v2
The above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
*Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
Nothing is final in philosophy.
For the most common forms of formal logic this paradox is not possible because there is no syntax for definitions.
On 11/28/25 12:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
This sentence is not true.
It is not true about what?
It is not true about being not true.
It is not true about being not true about what?
It is not true about being not true about being not true.
Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
gets to the point.
This is formalized in the Prolog programming language
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
False.
Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the
resolution of an expression remains stuck in
infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
In Olcott's Minimal Type Theory
LP := ~True(LP)Â Â Â // LP {is defined as} ~True(LP)
that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))
https://philarchive.org/archive/PETMTT-4v2
The above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
*Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
Nothing is final in philosophy.
self-contradictory statement bro
clearly at least something much be final, because if nothing was final
then that premise would become final and contradict itself
For the most common forms of formal logic this paradox is not possible
because there is no syntax for definitions.
On 11/28/25 12:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
This sentence is not true.
It is not true about what?
It is not true about being not true.
It is not true about being not true about what?
It is not true about being not true about being not true.
Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
gets to the point.
This is formalized in the Prolog programming language
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
False.
Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the
resolution of an expression remains stuck in
infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
In Olcott's Minimal Type Theory
LP := ~True(LP)Â Â Â // LP {is defined as} ~True(LP)
that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))
https://philarchive.org/archive/PETMTT-4v2
The above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
*Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
Nothing is final in philosophy.
self-contradictory statement bro
clearly at least something much be final, because if nothing was final
then that premise would become final and contradict itself
For the most common forms of formal logic this paradox is not possible
because there is no syntax for definitions.
On 2025-11-27, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
This sentence is not true.
It is not true about what?
It is not true about being not true.
It is not true about being not true about what?
It is not true about being not true about being not true.
Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
Most people get over the Liar Paradox by the time they
are out of elementary school.
It shows your very low intellectual maturity to be
so captivated by the Liar Paradox.
On 11/28/2025 9:29 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 11/28/25 12:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
This sentence is not true.
It is not true about what?
It is not true about being not true.
It is not true about being not true about what?
It is not true about being not true about being not true.
Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
gets to the point.
This is formalized in the Prolog programming language
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
False.
Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the
resolution of an expression remains stuck in
infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
In Olcott's Minimal Type Theory
LP := ~True(LP) // LP {is defined as} ~True(LP)
that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))
https://philarchive.org/archive/PETMTT-4v2
The above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
*Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
Nothing is final in philosophy.
self-contradictory statement bro
clearly at least something much be final, because if nothing was final then >> that premise would become final and contradict itself
How many digits does PI have?
Chris M. Thomasson has brought this to us :
On 11/28/2025 9:29 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 11/28/25 12:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
This sentence is not true.
It is not true about what?
It is not true about being not true.
It is not true about being not true about what?
It is not true about being not true about being not true.
Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
gets to the point.
This is formalized in the Prolog programming language
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
False.
Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the
resolution of an expression remains stuck in
infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
In Olcott's Minimal Type Theory
LP := ~True(LP)Â Â Â // LP {is defined as} ~True(LP)
that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))
https://philarchive.org/archive/PETMTT-4v2
The above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
*Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
Nothing is final in philosophy.
self-contradictory statement bro
clearly at least something much be final, because if nothing was
final then that premise would become final and contradict itself
How many digits does PI have?
10 in decimal.
Chris M. Thomasson has brought this to us :
On 11/28/2025 9:29 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 11/28/25 12:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
This sentence is not true.
It is not true about what?
It is not true about being not true.
It is not true about being not true about what?
It is not true about being not true about being not true.
Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
gets to the point.
This is formalized in the Prolog programming language
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
False.
Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the
resolution of an expression remains stuck in
infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
In Olcott's Minimal Type Theory
LP := ~True(LP)Â Â Â // LP {is defined as} ~True(LP)
that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))
https://philarchive.org/archive/PETMTT-4v2
The above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
*Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
Nothing is final in philosophy.
self-contradictory statement bro
clearly at least something much be final, because if nothing was
final then that premise would become final and contradict itself
How many digits does PI have?
10 in decimal.
On 11/27/2025 10:07 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-27, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
This sentence is not true.
It is not true about what?
It is not true about being not true.
It is not true about being not true about what?
It is not true about being not true about being not true.
Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
Most people get over the Liar Paradox by the time they
are out of elementary school.
It shows your very low intellectual maturity to be
so captivated by the Liar Paradox.
It seems as if PO IS the liar paradox itself?
On 2025-11-29, Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/27/2025 10:07 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-27, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
This sentence is not true.
It is not true about what?
It is not true about being not true.
It is not true about being not true about what?
It is not true about being not true about being not true.
Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
Most people get over the Liar Paradox by the time they
are out of elementary school.
It shows your very low intellectual maturity to be
so captivated by the Liar Paradox.
It seems as if PO IS the liar paradox itself?
Oh, he's written more than a pair of docs, but they are garbage.
On 11/28/25 12:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
This sentence is not true.
It is not true about what?
It is not true about being not true.
It is not true about being not true about what?
It is not true about being not true about being not true.
Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
gets to the point.
This is formalized in the Prolog programming language
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
False.
Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the
resolution of an expression remains stuck in
infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
In Olcott's Minimal Type Theory
LP := ~True(LP)Â Â Â // LP {is defined as} ~True(LP)
that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))
https://philarchive.org/archive/PETMTT-4v2
The above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
*Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
Nothing is final in philosophy.
self-contradictory statement bro
clearly at least something much be final, because if nothing was final
then that premise would become final and contradict itself
On 11/27/2025 10:07 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-27, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
This sentence is not true.
It is not true about what?
It is not true about being not true.
It is not true about being not true about what?
It is not true about being not true about being not true.
Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
Most people get over the Liar Paradox by the time they
are out of elementary school.
It shows your very low intellectual maturity to be
so captivated by the Liar Paradox.
It seems as if PO IS the liar paradox itself?
dart200 kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 19.29:
On 11/28/25 12:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
This sentence is not true.
It is not true about what?
It is not true about being not true.
It is not true about being not true about what?
It is not true about being not true about being not true.
Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
gets to the point.
This is formalized in the Prolog programming language
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
False.
Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the
resolution of an expression remains stuck in
infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
In Olcott's Minimal Type Theory
LP := ~True(LP)Â Â Â // LP {is defined as} ~True(LP)
that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))
https://philarchive.org/archive/PETMTT-4v2
The above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
*Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
Nothing is final in philosophy.
self-contradictory statement bro
clearly at least something much be final, because if nothing was final
then that premise would become final and contradict itself
Nothing is final in philosophy.
It includes the satement "nothing
is final in philosophy". Some philosphers may disagree with it or
are at least not convinced so it is not final in philosophy and
probably will never be. I don't think sufficiently many have said
enough about it to even say that "Nothing is final in philosophy"
is in philosophy.
dart200 kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 19.29:
On 11/28/25 12:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
This sentence is not true.
It is not true about what?
It is not true about being not true.
It is not true about being not true about what?
It is not true about being not true about being not true.
Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
gets to the point.
This is formalized in the Prolog programming language
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
False.
Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the
resolution of an expression remains stuck in
infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
In Olcott's Minimal Type Theory
LP := ~True(LP)Â Â Â // LP {is defined as} ~True(LP)
that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))
https://philarchive.org/archive/PETMTT-4v2
The above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
*Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
Nothing is final in philosophy.
self-contradictory statement bro
clearly at least something much be final, because if nothing was final
then that premise would become final and contradict itself
Nothing is final in philosophy. It includes the satement "nothing
is final in philosophy". Some philosphers may disagree with it or--
are at least not convinced so it is not final in philosophy and
probably will never be. I don't think sufficiently many have said
enough about it to even say that "Nothing is final in philosophy"
is in philosophy.
On 11/29/25 12:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
dart200 kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 19.29:
On 11/28/25 12:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
This sentence is not true.
It is not true about what?
It is not true about being not true.
It is not true about being not true about what?
It is not true about being not true about being not true.
Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
gets to the point.
This is formalized in the Prolog programming language
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
False.
Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the
resolution of an expression remains stuck in
infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
In Olcott's Minimal Type Theory
LP := ~True(LP)Â Â Â // LP {is defined as} ~True(LP)
that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))
https://philarchive.org/archive/PETMTT-4v2
The above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
*Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
Nothing is final in philosophy.
self-contradictory statement bro
clearly at least something much be final, because if nothing was
final then that premise would become final and contradict itself
Nothing is final in philosophy. It includes the satement "nothing
it's just not a coherent belief that could be truth, as truth must have
an ability to be final, even if we haven't yet figured out what that finality is
is final in philosophy". Some philosphers may disagree with it or
are at least not convinced so it is not final in philosophy and
probably will never be. I don't think sufficiently many have said
enough about it to even say that "Nothing is final in philosophy"
is in philosophy.
On 11/29/2025 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
dart200 kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 19.29:
On 11/28/25 12:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
This sentence is not true.
It is not true about what?
It is not true about being not true.
It is not true about being not true about what?
It is not true about being not true about being not true.
Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
gets to the point.
This is formalized in the Prolog programming language
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
False.
Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the
resolution of an expression remains stuck in
infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
In Olcott's Minimal Type Theory
LP := ~True(LP)Â Â Â // LP {is defined as} ~True(LP)
that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))
https://philarchive.org/archive/PETMTT-4v2
The above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
*Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
Nothing is final in philosophy.
self-contradictory statement bro
clearly at least something much be final, because if nothing was
final then that premise would become final and contradict itself
Nothing is final in philosophy.
Semantic tautologies are always final even
if no one understands them.
Any expression of language that is proven true
entirely on the basis of its meaning expressed
in language is a semantic tautology.
It includes the satement "nothing
is final in philosophy". Some philosphers may disagree with it or
are at least not convinced so it is not final in philosophy and
probably will never be. I don't think sufficiently many have said
enough about it to even say that "Nothing is final in philosophy"
is in philosophy.
On 11/29/25 8:10 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/29/2025 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
dart200 kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 19.29:
On 11/28/25 12:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
This sentence is not true.
It is not true about what?
It is not true about being not true.
It is not true about being not true about what?
It is not true about being not true about being not true.
Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
gets to the point.
This is formalized in the Prolog programming language
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
False.
Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the
resolution of an expression remains stuck in
infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
In Olcott's Minimal Type Theory
LP := ~True(LP)Â Â Â // LP {is defined as} ~True(LP)
that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))
https://philarchive.org/archive/PETMTT-4v2
The above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
*Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
Nothing is final in philosophy.
self-contradictory statement bro
clearly at least something much be final, because if nothing was
final then that premise would become final and contradict itself
Nothing is final in philosophy.
Semantic tautologies are always final even
if no one understands them.
Any expression of language that is proven true
entirely on the basis of its meaning expressed
in language is a semantic tautology.
not bad polcott, i agree 💯 i think...
mikko is refuted on that point
It includes the satement "nothing
is final in philosophy". Some philosphers may disagree with it or
are at least not convinced so it is not final in philosophy and
probably will never be. I don't think sufficiently many have said
enough about it to even say that "Nothing is final in philosophy"
is in philosophy.
Chris M. Thomasson kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 2.43:
On 11/27/2025 10:07 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-27, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
This sentence is not true.
It is not true about what?
It is not true about being not true.
It is not true about being not true about what?
It is not true about being not true about being not true.
Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
Most people get over the Liar Paradox by the time they
are out of elementary school.
It shows your very low intellectual maturity to be
so captivated by the Liar Paradox.
It seems as if PO IS the liar paradox itself?
Not really. The Liar in the paradox always lies. Real world liars
lie only sometimes and good ones only the minimum they need in
order to avoid revealing the truths they want to keep secret.
But
there also are people who don't care about truth and choose their
words by other criteria.
On 11/29/2025 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
dart200 kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 19.29:
On 11/28/25 12:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
This sentence is not true.
It is not true about what?
It is not true about being not true.
It is not true about being not true about what?
It is not true about being not true about being not true.
Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
gets to the point.
This is formalized in the Prolog programming language
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
False.
Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the
resolution of an expression remains stuck in
infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
In Olcott's Minimal Type Theory
LP := ~True(LP)Â Â Â // LP {is defined as} ~True(LP)
that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))
https://philarchive.org/archive/PETMTT-4v2
The above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
*Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
Nothing is final in philosophy.
self-contradictory statement bro
clearly at least something much be final, because if nothing was
final then that premise would become final and contradict itself
Nothing is final in philosophy.
Semantic tautologies are always final even
if no one understands them.
On 11/29/2025 1:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
Chris M. Thomasson kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 2.43:
On 11/27/2025 10:07 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-27, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
This sentence is not true.
It is not true about what?
It is not true about being not true.
It is not true about being not true about what?
It is not true about being not true about being not true.
Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
Most people get over the Liar Paradox by the time they
are out of elementary school.
It shows your very low intellectual maturity to be
so captivated by the Liar Paradox.
It seems as if PO IS the liar paradox itself?
Not really. The Liar in the paradox always lies. Real world liars
lie only sometimes and good ones only the minimum they need in
order to avoid revealing the truths they want to keep secret.
It's not a lie if you truly believe it?
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,089 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 155:08:18 |
| Calls: | 13,921 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 187,021 |
| D/L today: |
3,912 files (989M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,457,192 |